Do not move an ancient boundary stone
which was put in place by your ancestors
-Proverbs 22:28

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Papal Condom Nation Pt. 1

I expect you've read and heard of this latest 'flip-flop'.How the present pope has conflicted a previous pope- by presenting a radically different paradigm.And even conflicted his previous position- by now condoning condom use.

A pragmatic 'flip-flop'- to aid nominal Catholic nations.To prevent Catholics from flipping to an alternate authority.To prevent them from flopping to no authority.

Yes, Catholics with an impaired zeal are now permitted a latex defense. A defense that was not permitted prior to this recent 'illumination'. For a zeal that led to death.

Prior to this illumination, Rome appealed to a "naturally" contrived paradigm- a wind-blown paradigm (Eph. 4:14). Rather than appealing to a supernaturally derived paradigm- a God-breathed paradigm (2 Tim. 3:16).Appealed to a naturally-inferred purpose of sex. Rather than a supernaturally-conferred purpose of sex. Appealed to an an exclusive principle. Rather than an inclusive principle.Appealed to an exclusive "procreative principle". Rather than a principle that included procreation.

And now Rome is appealing to "the lesser evil" principle. While insisting that a 'lesser evil remains intrinsically evil'. A paradigm that is far less pretty than it appears. A paradigm that remains evil.A paradigm that is still quite "natural". It only looks supernatural.

and attempts to address the recent challenges of the 'birth control pill'---the recent course of human society and the concomitant changes

It recognizes that there are reasons for people to desire birth control yet insists on---a teaching which is based on the natural law as illuminated and enriched by divine Revelation.

A "natural law" which is---

necessary for men's eternal salvation. (3)

Rome here (3) provides a biblical reference ("Revelation") to support their "natural law" paradigm (Matthew 7:21). This reference suggests quite the opposite, however. This reference is calling us to do something quite unnatural. Something that 'natural' man is quite incapable of doing without supernatural assistance (cf. Romans 3:11,12).

Then after prefacing with special pleading and platitudes, Rome attempts to make a case for this "procreative principle" by invoking a God's "loving design" argument. Attempts to show that since husband and wife often do procreate- that their very purpose must therefore be to procreate ("and rear"). Attempts to show an exclusive purpose of sex (with 'corollary benefits'). A case void of any supernatural revelation. And void of valid logic.

Again, Rome is quite dogmatic ("constant doctrine") that because man has the "capability" to procreate- that it is incumbent on man only to have sex in a manner capable of procreation---each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. (12)Yes, quite dogmatic that man "must be willing to cooperate with God" in that regard. And that man's use of contraception precludes such willingness. That its use is "repugnant", "intrinsically wrong" and "unlawful".

Rome goes on to appeal to our natural:

1) Free WillSentiment-

It is also, and above all, an act of the free will

2) Parental Sentiment- Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute in the highest degree to their parents' welfare." (8)

Two appeals that are naturally very appealing- but for brevity sake, we won't get into this secondary stuff. Rome then goes on to appeal to God's alleged will-

they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life.OK, let's get into this primary argument. This unnatural argument.

We find that Rome is rather hypocritical here.That here Rome would then have to show:

i) that subscribing to Rome's Vow Of Celibacy- does not frustrate "God's design". ii) that subscribing to Rome's Rhythm Method of birth control (proscribed in this bull)- does not frustrate "God's design".For in the above, don't we still have man impairing his "willingness to cooperate with God" in procreation? Or men belaying their "willingness to cooperate" at the very least? Till the rhythm is right?Is this not special pleading as well? Are such subscribers truly an 'excluded middle'? Are not such folks then subscribing to a very different design as well? A less than exclusive design?

Rome would also have to show that:

i) the inability to "transmit life" is not also included in "God's design". ii) the unwillingness to "transmit life" isnot also included in "God's design".

For how can a design be "frustrated"... when it was never intended?And how can we know when procreation actually was intended?

But Rome fails to address such condom conundrums.And fails to address any supernatural appeals.